User talk:Collectonian/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Lassie 2 Temple Freda 3 Spoilers on MM 4 Boxer (dog) article 5 Bob Ross 6 Bob Ross 7 Early Boxers 8 Boxer dog 9 Recent Inuyasha Edits 10 Boxer dog archival 11 Article assessment - Meerkat Manor 12 Talk on boxer dog 13 SSP case 14 Ebert & Roeper Thumbs Summary 15 Boy Meets Boy 16 American Dragon: Jake Long Article References and Links 17 Simone 18 One more revert 19 Boston Legal 20 Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers 21 "wikipedia is not a democracy" 22 Define "adequately covered" 23 Stco23 24 So you're the new TTN 25 Image deletion 26 Stco23 27 Picture Day 28 Your Show of Shows 29 List of Trinity Blood Characters 30 WP:NFCC 31 Thanks (Yvon of the Yukon) 32 Trinity Blood 33 Good Suggestions

Lassie

Hi, I've also dropped a msg to User talk:LassieTV explaining WP:RS. JGHowes ^talk - 14:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...is there a site where I can find all those WP codes? I never remember to use them in my comments because I can't remember them all :P Collectonian 15:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• None that I know of. I eventually created an index on my User Page JGHowes ^talk - 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Awesome, thanks! I've been bookmarking pages as I find them, like the film guides cause I like working on B movie pages, but sometimes it takes a ton of work to find info on some stuff. That is a very useful page! Collectonian 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm going to voluntarily step away from the Lassie page issue for a few days. I'm having a hard time maintaining my temper with the Lassie.net person and I know I'm not completely unbiased as I've been a Lassie fan all of my life and I personally think the situation sucks all around. I hate just saying "I'm leaving it to you" but it doesn't seem like there are any other real editors who are caring about the article beyond myself. The newest person to pop in is an anonymous user with only a few contributions all related to Lassie which makes me suspicious.

I did want to note, however, that the Lassie.net person is not an unbiased party, nor is their site. I mentioned the note on their site on the Lassie talk page, but also their site notes that they have financially profited from Carol Riggins being the new Lassie trainer in that they were able to obtain one of Hey Hey's pups, giving them a potentially lucrative stake in insuring that no one questions things and possibly explaining their rabid attacks on any site that mention anything about the issue.

Anyhow, the whole thing is seriously starting to irk me, hence my stepping back. I don't need the stress, and I'm much less likely to be able to look at things objectively while I'm wanting to strangle people. :P Collectonian 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Temple Freda

Hello Collectonian. Thank you for your recent contributions to the Temple Freda article. I have recently added a few more references. Do you have any further suggestions on how the article might be improved. Thanks you and take care. Bhaktivinode 01:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Some of your newer references are much better than the Geocities one, however, when referencing books (like the one by Bill Page and the one by Rosa Levin Toubin), just noting that they were written doesn't really constitute a reference as you are not citing anything in particular from it. It would be better to simply note that these books were written regarding Temple Freda and if possible, summarize what they say. If you have copies of the books, could be valuable references for expanding the article and then you could reference them, making sure to cite specific pages.

In a way, referencing for articles is similar to what you must do for big papers in college: use reliable, verifiable sources, cite what you use, and don't list any reference that isn't actually being used in some true research fashion. :) Simply listing them or linking to them doesn't make them references, they must actually be used in the text as well. Collectonian 01:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In its present state, do you still think you will still nominate Temple Freda for AfD? Does it need further work to avoid this? Thanks and take care. Bhaktivinode 02:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As it is now, yes. It still has not met notability requirements. Many of the references you are using are either not in compliance with verifiability guidelines, or do not really contribute to the article as a whole or to the topic. The only third party verifiable sources that mention it all do so in passing, not in any way that establishes it as being notable. Collectonian 02:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be appropriate for you to place the AfD notice you are refering to on this article because I have no further contributions to make at this time. I appreciate your assistance with this article. Take care. Bhaktivinode 02:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers on MM

I'm getting tired of this issue and I'm quite sure that you are too! What is the point in this? Why don't we just put up one spoiler warning at the very top of the page, for those who don't already know that Wikipedia is an informational site, that will have spoilers. It's not like one spoiler tag will completely destroy the nice formation of our article. We just have to get the others to agree to it. If we get it, all the complaints will end and everyone will be happy. How do you feel about the whole thing?Mattkenn3 00:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am tired of the issue being brought up over and over. It is still a non-fiction documentary, irregardless of how dramatic Animal Planet likes to make it or the minor changes they like to make to events. Even the show producer has said on record, it is a documentary, not a soap opera, and they have announced upcoming deaths in advance of episodes.

Spoiler tags do not apply nor do they belong in the article. Again, to quote, "Spoiler tags should not be used in articles on non-fictional subjects." If that is ever changed, then it can be rediscussed for the Meerkat Manor article, but until then, the answer is still no spoiler tag. The article is not about a fictional topic, it is about a documentary series.

This isn't about making "everyone happy" it is about the quality of the article and the quality of Wikipedia as a whole. This isn't just an "informational site", it is an encyclopedic site. Collectonian 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but if this is an article on the show Meerkat Manor, not KMP. We should not have any info on events that have yet to happen on meerkat manor. The reason the people are angry is that the Kalahari Meerkat Project info was on the Meerkat Manor article. We don't get any of the research names or anything from Meerkat Manor, it's all coming from KMP. This is the Meerkat Manor article, so I think that we sould not have any of the KMP info on the MM article. We shouldn't have any info about anything that hasn't happened yet. If we keep the article strictly Meerkat Manor, there will be no spoilers, there will be no complaints, and the article will run much smoother.Mattkenn3 00:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

KMP is a valid secondary source for information about the show when they, or AP, when AP has not changed a meerkat's name, or when either party identifies a group or meerkat as being the ones on the show (as KMP has done with the Commandos/Vivian = Commandoes, and the Zappa/Young Ones). In general, KMP is used as a source to enhance existing information, especially group sizes, history, and current leadership. This article is about Meerkat Manor, the show, which is about the meerkats of KMP. To completely disregard the information from KMP would be to completely disregard the fact that it is a documentary about those meerkats.

When there is verifiable reliable information about any of the meerkats, either from KMP or another source, it can be properly included in the article, if properly cited. It appears the new book also mentions some of the differences, however those attempting to add the information are not properly citing it (and since the book is not available in the US, I seriously doubt some of them managed to get a copy). That is why I questioned the "stage name" guide cruise insists on continuing to post to the talk page. If there was an actual verifiable source that said "meerkat X on the show is Y" in real life, I would have immediately updated the article to include that and more info. The only reason more KMP info is not used it because neither AP or KMP have officially posted anywhere that to clarify the real names of the renamed meerkats. For example, neither has stated officially that Maybelline's real name is Monkulus. We might all know if from a quick glance at the KMP site, but unless they say it or some other reliable source does, it falls under the original research clause.

Even without the KMP info, there will be spoilers and there will still those few complaints (which, you may not, are not that often or that common, and primarily comes from just two or three people). The spoilers about Flower's upcoming death did NOT come from KMP, it came from Animal Planet themselves, who released the information well in advance of the airing of the episodes in the US so parents could be forewarned. They have already said they will prewarn on ALL upcoming deaths of major characters. Events in the upcoming episodes came from Animal Planet US's own episode guide. There will also be "spoilers" and continuous complaints/whining from US viewers because UK viewers see the episodes much earlier and rightly add that information to the article.

Again, Meerkat Manor is not a fictional show. We aren't posting fan guesses about between season events. We are posting verified, valid information to enhance an article about a non-fictional show and its "stars." That is part of the point of Wikipedia. It isn't here to be a simple episode guide or a quick fan page, it is to inform. Collectonian 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have brought up the issue of whether the KMP info belongs in the Meerkat Manor article with some neutral editors in the policy boards. Depending on the consensus, all KMP only info will be removed from the article. This will not, as I mentioned above, prevent spoilers, however, so I have also asked about the spoiler tag debate. I will post the results to the MM talk page after enough time for commenting has passed. Collectonian 07:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, if this doesn't work I have a couple other plans that I can throw out there, when needed. Thanks for all the help.Mattkenn3 21:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No need to thank. I had brought up the discussion because of the original research issues of things like the "stage name guide" and it became a discussion of whether KMP info should be included at all.  :-P The spoilers one, so far, agrees with the existing consensus that non-fiction articles should not have spoiler tag. Collectonian 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Boxer (dog) article

greetings,

i dont understand how the pis arent relevant. the article (boxer) describes the various colours and there are pics of various coloured dogs. likewise the article mentions cropped ears and there is an image of a dog with cropped ears. i agree that there was too many and removed a number of pics. was using IP 140.168.69.130 but not the other you mention.

if you are the image nazi then shouldnt it be your duty to go through EVERY wiki article a remove all the pics? ?

given that this is a community we should meet in the middle. you can remove all images with the exception of riley.jpg titled "male boxer at 18 months". he was my much loved family member and a multiple australian champion untill he passed last year. ideally he'd be in the info box as, although i'm biased, is the only boxer on that page that is true to the breed standard, plus its actually a good photo.

cheers,

I'm sorry for your loss, but Wikipedia is not a place to display your lost pet's image. I would never dream of uploading a picture of one of my pets to use to illustrate an article. It is completely inappropriate and goes against WP:NPOV. The article does not need an image to illustrate every last aspect of the article. The images really do not add anything that is not found in the first image. An image is not needed to illustrate every single color, and the infobox image already shows both a cropped and uncropped dog. I am not the image "nazi" and that remark is uncalled for. No, it is not my "duty" to go through every article to remove all images, nor did I even try to remove all of them. I removed the unnecessary ones that were glutting up the article, which I have done on other articles and which many other editors do as well. Boxers are a popular, well known breed. They deserve a high quality article that properly follows the Wikipedia standards. Collectonian 04:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Please note, I've taken the image dispute to the editor assistance board and will implement their suggestions. Collectonian 14:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

so nice of you to be reanonable and not get the moderators involved...oh wait you did

i believe my request to keep the riley pic was reasonable. if you oblige i'll vow never to bug you again.

interestingly you kept the pic of the white boxer which does not meet breed standard

as for being a soxpuppet, am i not allowed to use more than 1 computer...home, office, laptop etc???

kind regards,

M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medusa911 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I put back the white boxer pic by the suggestion of other editors because it is unusual. The request to keep the Riley pic was biased, but reasonable, and it will be put back if the proper place for it can be determined. Please, sign your posts and put new stuff at the bottom. BTW, I do not believe you are allowed to blank sock puppet reports, so you may get a note about that. Won't come from me, though. Collectonian 02:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!

Much appreciated :)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Medusa911 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Bob Ross

Hi, can I ask why you keep removing the details of Bob's 3rd wife? You sent a message before asking for a source, I gave the source as a comment on the change I made. Sorry that issues of Brush Strokes magazine are not available online. It would be nice for the other Bob fans to read, unfortunately, the Bob Ross INC is way too political to release too much Bob info. So those are my sources, I'm sure you or Wiki wouldn't accept personal conversations that I have had with 3 of Bob's close friends(excluding the Kowalski family and 2 of his school friends) as a reliable source confirming this information so I gave you the next best thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewindmill (talk • contribs) 01:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You gave a "source" in the edit summary (which does not count as providing a source). No one else is backing up this statement and if he was married a third time, there should be some mention about it somewhere. It would be rare and odd if only a single magazine would note the third marriage a cultural figure. Not a single obituary has mentioned a third wife nor any other article found about Bob Ross anywhere. It is not just a matter of needing an online source, it must be verifiable, something someone else can go, look at it, and see. I have scoured a ton of magazine and newspaper research databases trying to find some mention of a third wife, and not a single one has had so much as a mention.

Something like that can not be added to an article without a valid, verifiable, reliable third party source, else it can be considered libelous. Collectonian 01:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutely not necessary to provide an online source; there is nothing at all like that in policy. This is why many sources are provided as references to books, magazines and newspaper articles that can't be found online and are considered perfectly acceptable. Also, please don't argue semantics over what the word "providing" means--it's totally clear that putting something in the edit summary makes the citation available to everyone. Regardless of whether or not he actually has a third wife, it definitely would not qualify as libel to add it considering a) he is dead and b) there is no reasonable way to argue financial damages to his estate by suggesting he had a third wife. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who are you and why are you jumping into the conversation? I never said he had to provide an online source, just ANY reliable, verifiable source. I also said he had to properly cite it, which IS in Wikipedia policy: controversial edits must be properly cited or they can (and will) be removed. A vague citation made in the edit summary is NOT proper citation. Having only a single questionable source that no one can verify and that the user himself doesn't even seem to have is NOT a valid source. FYI, libel can also include damaging his reputation. Collectonian 14:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The nature of Wikipedia allows anyone to join in on conversations, especially to add and correct information. You said "[i]t is not just a matter of needing an online source," where "just" would indicate it was a requirement, but with your clarification I see that you didn't intend that. It's not policy that it must be cited in a specific form, just that a citation be provided that's accessible to any readers/editors. No policy requires that citations not be done in edit summaries. Instead of making a big dela of the matter, you should have just copied and pasted it into the article, but instead you seem insistent on arguing semantics over what "provided" means, which seems rather like a violation of WP:CIVIL (in addition to your general approach on this talk page). WP:CITE is strictly a style guideline. A publicly available magazine is a source that ANYONE can verify (just not online)--you seem to be angling it being an online source even though you said it need not be one. FYI, if you damage someone's reputation, you almost always have to establish it caused significant financial damages--the standard for libel is high, especially for public figures (which Bob Ross/his estate are). -Nathan J. Yoder 01:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but as this was a friendly conversation between he and I. It was not in the article's talk page and I rather resent your popping in like this. Neither of us asked for a third opinion nor arbitration. I find it rather odd that you would suddenly come over to my talk page for no apparent reason just to disrupt our conversation. My comments here nor in the summaries are in any way a violation of WP:CIVIL. I have not insulted him nor belittled him. I'm trying to help him understand the need for full, proper citation over disputed additions, particularly one like this that can not be substantiated easily anywhere else.

As for your assertion, to quite "Inline citations are needed for statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, including contentious material about living persons, and for all quotations." Edit summaries are NOT inline citations.

I'm not arguing over semantics, I'm arguing over validity and truth. Wikipedia is not a place for rumors or unsubstantiated claims. Yes, he did give a partial source in the last edit summary, but that is still not a full source. Nor does it seem to be verifiable as he can't (or hasn't) provided full details of the source, rather he just seems to vaguely remember it being a certain volume of a little known magazine (that is only sold via subscription, if I remember correctly). If he doesn't have the magazine in question in hand, how can he claim to know what it says and where? Wikipedia verifiability guidelines do not include "your memory." I have no problems with off line resources, and use them myself, but when they are used, just as with an online one, they should be properly cited. I wouldn't cite a book I didn't have in my hand to actually cite and was just trying to remember reading from over a decade ago. Collectonian 02:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think it would be an issue replying here considering that it's an issue concerning an article's content and interjecting over article disputes is standard practice. I e-mailed the official Bob Ross website to ask about a third wife and about any sources concerning this if she exists. What you're citing (and now quoting) is a style guideline. Even if someone made the worst conceivable stylistic choices for an article (e.g. make it one giant, run-on sentence), it still wouldn't be violating a policy to do so. I don't think you should bite the newbie over simply putting a citation in the wrong place. By suggesting that he did not provide a citation, you're implicitly contesting the semantics of what it means to provide a citation. It was provided, just not in a manner that conforms to the preferred style of Wikipedia. Also, it is not safe to assume that he's wrong just because he's going from memory, especially considering he did make it feasible to falsify; he provieded two issues of the magazine to check. I don't think he had a third wife based on my searches of the web and books, but his citation in itself wasn't an issue in terms of the "verification being feasible to falsify."

I will reply back when I receive a reply from the Bob Ross website contact email address concerning the matter of the existence of his third wife. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not really biting the newbie, as he isn't that new. Part of the problem is it was slide in back in April, and went unnoticed for months cause it went unnoticed (even I didn't notice it for months, despite working on other sections). Probably in part due to insane amount of vandalism the article gets. I'm not assuming he's wrong (though I suspect it since I would think a third wife would be mentioned in the obituaries), but I don't think memory can be used like that as a ciation. If he can't say for sure which volume, at minimum, and which page (preferable), he could just as easily be claiming anything because the magazine would be nearly impossible to find for someone to check. Back issues are not sold and I believe it is out of print. To me, it would be no different than one of the vandals trying to say that Bob Ross was gay and they say it in some magazine somewhere, but just says "oh, issue this or that, one of those." It may seem like I'm being a hard butt about it, but I have genuinely tried to get more details from him and some verifiability. However, I also firmly believe that articles, especially about people (living or dead), must be properly referenced and cited, especially for little know facts or information. Collectonian 06:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bob Ross

I e-mailed the official Bob Ross website and got a response indicating that Jane was his most recent wife (his second). The quote of interest is (excluding stuff they added advertising Bob Ross stuff): "Bob's wife was Jane, whom he spoke fondly of in many of his Joy of Painting episodes." I wasn't sure where to add this, so feel free to move it to the archive. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. I suspect the fellow who was trying to add the third wife may be misremembering the article, since the name he is trying to add is very close to the first wife's. Thanks :) Collectonian 04:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Early Boxers

Hi, you've tagged my created image of the early boxers as copyright violation... Well, those are pictures from Boxers prior to 1900, how a 100 year-old photographs can be deemed copyright violation? Could you resolve this issue, since you are the original complainer? The link to the image Image:Earlyboxers.jpg. If you are unwilling or not able to resolve this issue, please contact me so that I can do that. Loudenvier 16:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have also noticed that you took a recent interest into contributing to the Boxer article dog... Well, that's my pet article :-) Welcome! Loudenvier 16:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I've noticed that you indeed removed the majority of the pictures on that article... Do you think it was wise? Now we don't even have a sample of each color... Sometimes less is more, but in this case it is way too less!!! A better ratio picture/text is possible to achieve. I used to try to balance by letting in any pictures that added value to the page, removing redundant pictures (I even started a gallery of sorts to try to help avoiding having people adding pictures to the main article, but, of course, that was not encyclopedic in itself :-)) Loudenvier 16:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The image is tagged because there is no evidence that all of the pictures are 100 years old. It is a composite image made of other people's photographs. If you can show they are in the public domain, follow the instructions to do so.

Yes, I do believe the image removals were wise and it was discussed in the editor request board as well. They were excessive and unnecessary per WP:IMAGE guide lines. A sample of every last color isn't needed. If you want to have a sample of all colors, find a photo showing one of each and use that instead. See the article talk page for further discussion (so we aren't talking in two places at once :) ). Collectonian 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Boxer dog

Hi again, I do not want to discuss this in the article because now it is a personal message to you. I think you misunderstood many things when discussing this on the Boxer (dog) talk page. You even went so far to say I'm not contributing to the article's content... It is a grave accusation to make to an avid wikipedian contributor like myself. You certainly did not took your time to see the article's history. Almost the entire Early Genealogy and Name of the Breed section was written by me alone, and it is well referenced... Just like you, I do also work on another articles, including the GA class Mitsuyo Maeda article which happened to reach this class from a mere stub with my help and two other editors alone. You can make a comparison of our edit summaries: mine vs yours. Interesting to say that they are very close, so I may also argue that I have a broad range or articles that I edit (just see my watchlist, it's huge!). I have a special interest for the Boxer article, but I'm not biased as you accused me to be, there isn't a single picture there of my own boxers. I also avoided edit warring with you, since edit war is detrimental to wikipedia (you violated the 3RR rule by editing warring in the last week...). Just like the Guinea Pig article have pictures that highlight something UNIQUE for the topic the agility boxer picture does the same, and we had only a single picture of the many uses of the boxer, not one for each use. We were already trying not to have TOO MANY needless pictures, or oh so cute puppy pictures. If you see the article now, there isn't a single puppy picture, which is wrong sing we are missing an important visual clue. You said the breeders and ownwers will gang up against any editor that actually attempts to bring the article in line with wikipedia policies, and that's a big lie. Other editors and administrators had intervened with success on the Boxer article, but they always kept in mind that wikipedia is a collective work, where there's no formal peer review, so any changes must be collectively accepted, the last resort being the enforcement of policies through administration intervention. A proper discussion in the talk page is normally enough to reach consensus. The big problem is that you simply made up your mind regarding those pictures, edited the article according to your opinion and wished no one objected to you. I had my share of set backs in wikipedia before, I took a break from editing it exactly due to this kind of friction: I was being forced to debate more than to actually contribute. It was getting on my nerves. I just don't agree that all those pictures needed to be removed, some of them I am with you, I just didn't that myself before because I was very, very tired of discussing (as you see, I'm not able to write just a few words, I always happen to write a lot of words!!!). I will not bring the pictures back because I respect your judgment, I will open a discussion and a kind of poll on the talk page with the current pictures and the removed pictures to see what most of the editors think about it. Oh! I think the tone of your answer on my naive comment about the Boxer article being able to make to class A was a little too aggressive, was it retaliation? Our discussion was fruitless so far, it did not made the article a better one, and it ended with you "giving" up the boxer article. That was not the point. Loudenvier 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent Inuyasha Edits

Please remember to post in the discussion page when making large edits as you did recently in the Inuyasha article. Following WP:EP policy under the major changes section. Leads to less reverts and confusion. Showers 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The WP:EP policy does not require pre-discussion on making edits, particularly clean ups, even large ones. It only says "it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion" if the change may be disagreed with, discourage the original author, or is major. There is nothing controversial about fixing a badly written section. If someone disagrees with the removal of the unsourced, NPOV section, they are welcome to revert and start a discussion on it (not really a major edit, it was one paragraph). It isn't always required to start the discussion first, as per both WP:EL and WP:Be Bold Collectonian 01:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said there had to be any pre-disscussion before making any edits. You should post about why you made such edits in the talk page however when they are so large. Regardless of wether someone might disagree with it or not. The talk pages are there to inform (regarding edits)as well as for discussion. WP:EP does not ask for pre-discussion, it asks that you inform. Showers 04:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary should have been sufficient for that. In general, I don't see a necessity to post a detailed explanation to the talk page unless it is truly a major edit (which I didn't see that as being), a multitude of edits which can't be explained well in the edit summary, or to get pre-feedback on before doing. Collectonian 04:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider any edit that is bolded on my watchlist a major edit. Think it does that at around 700 characters. As well as any time you blank a section of an article. Its a subjective thing however. Eye of the beholder and all that. Showers 04:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it is subjective. For an article of that length, to me, it wasn't a major edit. When I hack out a trivia section or the like, I also don't consider it a major edit. However, with some pages, when a complete redesign or a lot of rearranging is done, I have made sure to details it and the rational behind in the talk pages. Its just for me, this wasn't that major, more clean up :) Collectonian 04:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Boxer dog archival

Hi, the archival was not innapropriate, the talk page was way too long... By seeing your revert it looked like that you think I was trying to hide our conversation, and that was not true, I was trying to find a easier, more productive way to settle the picture matter. Please do not patronize me about NPOV and TALK guidelines, it seems that you don't understand those guidelines. Regards Loudenvier 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Selective archiving is inappropriate and violates both guidelines. I'm not patronizing you, I'm informing you. Your method was inappropriate. If you felt it was too long, add an archiver (as I've done). Removing recent conversations does give the appearance that you wanted to hide the recent discussion so people only see your view on things. Collectonian 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to substitute the long discussion with a more cleaner version, but as you feel it was inappropriate I've brought the old discussion back. Archiving is a selective process in itself, the guidelines asks for you to be selective and only archive what is really unnecessary or redundant, and bring back old discussions if they are still active or being reactivated. I think the poll is a very democratic way to settle this matter, and I have tried to "educate" people about the use of pictures, I'm not completely opposite with you on that matter, I don't want all those pictures. I just think pictures are a very important aspect of an article, and they make wikipedia better. Loudenvier 16:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving is not so selective that you archive discussions that are very recent. In general, when you manually archive, you only archive older discussions or ones that are completely off topic (like two people chatting about something irrelevant to the article). You don't get to remove the discussions you don't agree with, even if you feel it is "done." In doing so, whether it is your intention or not, you give the appearance that you are hiding the conversation and don't want anyone to know that another editor disagrees with the images.

Please stop reverting before we both violated the 3RR rule. I've posted about the issue to the editor assistance board because I believe both of us are focusing more on our arguments with each other rather than appropriate Wikipedia behavior. Can we agree to let a neutral third party look at the talk page issue and decide what, if anything, should be done and both step back for now? Collectonian 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment - Meerkat Manor

These categories are subjective and may be reviewed by any member of WP:TV who feels confident to do so. Please note that a more formal assessment by other editors is required to achieve good article or featured article status. I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here.--Opark 77 14:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

As requested here I've reassessed Meerkat Manor. I've included a summary of my thinking here.--Opark 77 14:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I'll keep your suggestions in mind as I work to improve the article more :) Collectonian 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk on boxer dog

Hi again... after our barely civil "conversation" we both agreed that we always have wished the best for the article. In fact we both wanted to remove extraneous pictures... That is very fun how people with the same intents sometimes happen to blindly fight over the same point of view :-). But, on the other hand, I think it would not be wise for you to keep responding the the anonymous "talker"... I feel a thread of irony under every single of his/her comments. It can be his way of talking, I don't know... If you keep answering (you happen to suffer from this same illness that I do :-) you can be dragged into another edit/flame war. :-) And thank-you for not giving up on the Boxer article... Let's make it one of the few breed-related GA articles. Oh! Almost forgot. I'm planning to remove the comments I did on the article's "Talk:Boxer_(dog)/Comments" since my comments were not pertinent and were comparative to other articles rather than objective in regard to this article. Your comment is, on the other hand, objective, but I guess it was done with a little bad temper (we were in the heat of our polite conversation then :-). If you think they still applies fully, let them there, if you don't feel, you may wish to reword or remove it and let another "outside" editor do the job for us. Loudenvier 18:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi and so very true :) I agree on not responding to the anon (or rather NewCastle). I don't think he gets why his actions went from Be Bold to vandalism or the difference between his interaction and ours (I think we only reverted once before taking it to the talk page, even if we did get heated there LOL). I'm just gonna ignore him now and let him do his thing. And quite welcome...I'm sorry I got rather grumpy...I can be a little hard headed and I've had to be heavy handed on other articles which makes me sometimes forget to be less so on the rest. ;-) I'll update my comments on the raking with the new improvements. Collectonian 19:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure him/her is newcastle? I had never any trouble with this user... In fact I enjoy his/her contributions a lot :-) Very strange... By the way, have you ever take a look at Newcastle's site? He/she is really a serious breeder of Boxers, perhaps only too emotional (I had to convince him/her that a link to his/her site was inappropriate)... I still remember the day I discovered the story of hugo one of his/her dogs, I went very emotional (even wept a little) because a few months before I had asked Newcastle to release some picture of Hugo to illustrate the Boxer article, which, back then had terrible pictures. If it indeed is him/her I guess he/she will bring to normality as soon as he/she realizes the article is much better now... Even as grown-ups, sometimes we do behave as children (I confess I did that at least two times during our "polite" discussion), perhaps that was the case with Newcastle if it was him/her indeed. Take a look at his/her site, it will bring you a new insight regarding Newcastle ([1]). Loudenvier 19:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought he said on the talk page that the anon was him, but maybe I'm mixing up anon folks. And very true, we do, especially when we did in our heels (and I know I did too LOL). Collectonian 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I forgot to mention I'm borrowing your user page layout... I liked the "div" approach to organizing the user boxes (I thought that user boxes were a silly thing, but now I think that when well used they can share a lots of insight about oneself). Hope you don't mind... I even put a babel template too... :-) Loudenvier 19:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, I don't mind at all, that's how I figured out how to do it, borrowed from someone else ;) Collectonian 19:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

SSP case

I am the admin who handled the SSP case you filed. Aburesz asked to be unblocked and I've approved it. See his talk page if you like. I am not unblocking Lulu though. Note that in the SSP case, I said it was more a meat puppet case vice sock and the block was 72 hours and I wasn't tagging the user pages. You should not have done that either, that's usually an admin task and it's usually done, as Admin Daniel said here, only in indef block cases with solid evidence. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I said on Daniel's page, I did not tag him. Twinkle automatically did it when I did the SSP case. Someone should probably check the script if that is not something it is supposed to do :( Collectonian 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've asked the Twinkle operator about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ebert & Roeper Thumbs Summary

Hi Collectonian. I just wanted to let you know that I've reverted your deletion of an External link on At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper because I feel that the link in question falls within WP:EL#What_should_be_linked (#3). The link is to a list that I maintain listing in summary form the "thumbs up/thumbs down" votes for each movie reviewed on the show for the past 3 years. I think that Wikipedia users find this information valuable and I regularly receive e-mail from users confirming such. The information is not available in summary form anywhere else. I maintain the list for no purpose other than providing a useful resource to fellow viewers of the program. The list contains no solicitations. I'm also putting a note about this on the article's talk page. Thanks. Bryan H Bell 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that by adding a link to your own site, you are in violation of the Wikpidia conflict of interest policy and the Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest policies, right? Collectonian 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. Thank you for pointing that out. I was just trying to share some useful information I'd pulled together, but can understand the inherent conflict of interest. Don't know why this didn't occur to me earlier. I've responded to your answer on the article's talk page asking another editor to decide if they think the link should be listed and, if so, to add it. By the way, since from your user page it appears that you're a more seasoned editor than I, perhaps you can offer me some advice. I've been considering moving my Ebert & Roeper Thumbs Summary pages onto Wikipedia itself where others may help me to maintain the information. Do you think that such a resource would be appropriate for Wikipedia? Why or why not? Thanks for your help. Bryan H Bell 02:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I do not think it would be an appropriate Wikipedia source as it would go against the original research policy and it would also go against the what Wikipedia is not guidelines. It wouldn't be considered encyclopedic, but more of a trivia type thing. Collectonian 02:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Bryan H Bell 02:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Boy Meets Boy

All of the information that you;re objecting to under WP:BLP is verified by reliable sources. If you would back off your reversions and, oh I don't know, look at the sources you would see that any possible BLP concerns are addressed. Otto4711 03:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

See the article talk page. Collectonian 03:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please revert your edit in which you falsely accuse me of vandalism. Otto4711 03:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to circumvent the 3RR rule is a form of vandalism, as were your continual reverts after being directed to the talk page. If you had been willing to wait five minutes for me to finish my reply to your discussion start, I clarified the removal and even offered suggestions on ways you could incorporate some of the information from the removed section. Collectonian 04:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh my freaking god. Go look at my last edit to the article. It consisted of adding inline citations for all three items. The notion that adding inline citations for previoulsy unsourced material is "vandalism" is ridiculously stupidly bizarre. How many vandals do you know of whose vandalism takes the form of adding inline citations in proper Wikipedia format? If you would have taken one minute to click on the links for the sources then you would have seen that they are reliable. If anyone is vandalising this article, it's you, by removing properly sourced material with no justification. Otto4711 04:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A: the material was not properly sourced until the last time you attempted to add it. B: Read the talk page. IMDB is NOT a reliable source and the second source is from a biased site. Those are not reliable sources, especially for statements about living people. C: The vandalistic act was you continue to readd removed material, not the attempt to justify it with last minute citations. D: Please watch your tone before you also violate the WP:Civility policy. Collectonian 04:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• OK, it's fairly clear that you have little to no grasp of the relevant policies and guidelines. Taking this in order: A) If the material was unsourced previously, then adding sources is a good thing, not vandalism. B) I've read the talk page. That the material isn't currently presented in a format that you don't like is no reason to remove it. Your claim that a source is "biased" puts a presumption on you to demonstrate that it's biased. I suspect that your claim of bias is based on the fact that the source is an LGBT-related news outlet, which if true points to your biased assumption that such sources are not "neutral." C) Adding sources is not vandalism. We like sources. We encourage sources. Adding sources is a good thing and removing material because sources have been added is an affront to the mission of Wikipedia. D) Sorry if you don't like my tone. I'm doing my damndest to remain civil in the face of irrational actions. Otto4711 04:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

American Dragon: Jake Long Article References and Links

Why did you remove the references and links? The blog is from the producers of the show and the other link is from the initial creator of the show. I did revert your edits (and later reverted my own edit/revert until this conflict is resolved). I need to know why do you believe that it is necessary to remove those? Thank you for your time. TrackFan 00:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A blog is not considered a WP:reliable source source per the WP:SPS section of the verifiability clause. The two areas that are sourced with those items are also borderline NPOV violations and should be edited to be more neutral, and sourced from a third party, neutral source (the first one, in particular, should be sourcable from elsewhere if it was "announced" on that date. Collectonian 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So, what kind of statements should be referenced? (EDIT: I suppose the first statement could be removed) Could you also break down what you said into more layman's terms? (EDIT: Specifically, how do you make a statement neutral and sourced from a third party?) TrackFan 02:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the changes that you've made and I have to agree with you so I removed unreferenced sources and opinionated sections from the article. I believe that is the last of it. As a side note (this has nothing to do with the article), I saw that you are a fan of the Sci-Fi Original Movies. I also love watching those B-Movie monster flicks. TrackFan 03:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Great, its looking much better. Yep...the only bad thing about loving those movies, is I feel required to make sure they have Wikipedia articles whenever they come on :P Collectonian 03:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Simone

As a heads-up, Margarida's back from her block.--Dali-Llama 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And back to messing up the article. I'd stopped watching the article hoping she'd learned her lesson and stopped glutting the article. Instead, she managed to get the image deleted from WikiCommons and is back to trying to add in the fancruft. If she does her last trick, though, rather than attempting to dialogue anymore, I'd suggest just letting the admins deal with her. Since she's already engaged in meatpuppetry and violating 3RR, I suspect they would be less inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt in the future. I agree, though, careful watching by multiple editors will be needed until she either realizes that glutting the article with fancruft and bad info will not be allowed, or gets herself indef banned. Collectonian 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The summary justifies my latest edition. How do justify vandalism? Lulu Margarida ^yes? 10:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A false summary does not justify your once again reverting the article to its original bad shape. Collectonian 14:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It´s not a false summary. I did indeed change all sources and deleted multiply´s. You should look it yr self. Why do you say this is a false summary? Lulu Margarida ^yes? 14:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is false because that it not what you did, you tried, again, to restore the old version (which did check). That is a misleading summary. You also tried, again, to put back non-neutral sources under the the same false summary. Collectonian 15:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I restored the old version but with new sources --you pointed the multiply sources calling it fansite. If you click on edit this page and then make a seach for "multiply" you will no longer see links to this site. You can alos check Allmusic.com footnotes, and to her official web site. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 15:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing to a different source does not make it okay to restore the old version, especially if the source is the same as the old one (which it would have to be to support everything that the multiply site did). Also, if it is her official site, it would not fall under the neutral, third-party requirement. Collectonian 15:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How can the source be the same? It´s from AllMusic.com. AS I said on the summary, Elvi´s, Hillary´s, Kennedy´s, MAdonna they all sourced from their official web site. Should these sources be deleted? Lulu Margarida ^yes? 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

AllMusic is already listed as a source in the article for the information it can source. Some sourcing can be done from the official sites, as per WP:LIVING for very basic information. Also, their official sites are all in English. As this is the English Wikipedia, it is strongly preferred that any sources used are also in English. Despite being banned and having multiple editors give you multiple reasons for why the article needing changed, you continue to try to force it back into an readable, unencyclopedic mess. For someone who claims to be a fan of Simone's, do you not realize you are only hurting her article with your repeated attempts to subvert Wikipedia guidelines and policies? Collectonian 15:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Simone´s article is very basic one, and the official site indeed only lists basic infos (so much that it´s abt to be replaced). What you called a fan site is made 100% from scanned docs, imgs from newspapers and magazines. There is not a single written source. Besides, if you yr self cannot check port/brazilian footnotes you shouldn´t delete without knowing. And besides, the abandoned text you left there floating is unsourced and most of it doesn´t have en. sources. And besides, the (unreleased) soap opera themes are also unsourced (there is onle one source in pt) and should be deleted. And even worse than that is all these creepy articles this Dali whatever writes using only Pt sources. And finally, if a footnote to AllMusic,com suffices, why don´t you just build a Linkpedia instead of a Wikipedia? I assure you, Iam not the one hurting Simone´s career, reputation and image. Iamnot the one doing that with Brazilian music as well. Lulu Margarida ^yes? 15:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

One more revert

If otto makes another revert I am putting in a 3RR report. I've already got it ready. You may be fine with the triva section being there, but I'm not. It needs to be incorporated into the article. Either way, I added the trivia tag, and he removed it (again), and it really isn't about the content of the article anymore, it is about his disregard to policy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not fine with it being there at all. I'd like the trivia section gone too, but it seemed like Otto wouldn't let anyone else do anything to improve the article, so I kinda gave up editing it and asked for assistance instead. I already have an idea of how to work it in, just don't want to make the effort and have it reverted again :-P Collectonian (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Its unfortunate that a user like that makes you feel like you cannot positively contribute to an article. I left another 3RR messages on his page, only to have it deleted by him with a reply that said "spare me the lectures". I'll be watching this. Don't be discouraged, as your opinion, and my opinion, are backed by policy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Collectonian. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Otto4711 regarding User:Otto4711. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.

--Rjd0060 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks for reporting. Unfortunately, so far it looks like his distruptive behaviour is going to be allowed to continue. I'm going to post over there about the other attempt to deal with things that he also ignored. Collectonian (talk)

Go ahead and leave any comments you wish. One user seems to want to comment on that for some reason, although I am trying to and going to AGF. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Boston Legal

First of all, its not original research, if u knew about star trek, William shatner and the concept of meta references, you wouldn't be in a hurry to delete the pages. I specifically created 2 other pages because i thought we should at least mention the unique characteristics of the show. However, i do hope that you understand that this contribution is to add to the show, and to provide the normal wikipedia user with all the knowledge about the show. The concept of meta references has been put intentionally in the series by the writers. Think about this for a moment. Thanks iquadri (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I do know plenty about Star Trek, actually, and enjoy watching it. There is no need to list every last reference ever made in the show to Star Trek, nor is there a need to keep a running list of meta references. At best, a one paragraph summary of both aspects of the show should be included in a section on production details. Collectonian (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers

I put them in articles because you deleted that link about the DVD releases which had my uploaded photos on and I don't want those deleted. I want to keep my uploads on wikipedia. I am not a vandal and I respect the fair use laws on wikipedia. If I can not have what I want please put back the first link that you deleted before I did this. Thank You.--Stco23 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, that is not a valid reason for the articles at all. You don't get to just create articles to keep your images around. The first pages were deleted through the AfD process, meaning a consensus of editors agreed they belonged in the main Chip N Dale articles. Your recreating them with new names can be considered vandalism. Collectonian (talk) 00:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Forget about it because I did something else to keep them on, I put them on the main article instead. I could not find the other photo that was on the old article, but if you know where it is let me know. Bye.--Stco23 (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They have been removed. Images are completely unnecessary for every DVD release. Collectonian (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't want them deleted within a week and thats the reason why I put them on the main article. Do you want them to be deleted, if not were should I put them. Let me know. Bye.--Stco23 (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care one way or the other if they are deleted. They are not a necessary component to the article nor to Wikipedia as a whole. Images are constantly being deleted. Collectonian (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am only trying to expand the article and the images are expanding the article. I know you don't like some things on wikipedia, but this should not be one of them. This is not a text only site so please let people put images on articles please. Thank You.--Stco23 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

They are unnecessary, period, and the way you are doing it messes up the article. Collectonian (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

"wikipedia is not a democracy"

Why is that that *you* get to do whatever you want and I am not allowed to have a say? DavidRF (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You aren't trying to have a say, you simply reverted because you disagreed with the merging of the articles. Even if you disagree with the removal of the individual volumes, the edits to the main article were still improvements, as it is full of NPOV violations and just one big ugly chunk of text. thought it would be nicer of me to merge and clean up the articles rather than just AfDing them, but since you seem determined to keep all of the articles, I've AfDed all five individual volume articles. Precedence so far has shown that they are extremely likely to be deleted, as it is already agreed that individual DVD releases do not need separate articles. Just tried to save some steps and improve the article as a whole.

As for the template deletion nomination, once an AfD or TfD is done, you can NOT remove the tags from the article, per policy. Make your case at the nomination and an admin will remove the tag if the decision is to keep, or delete the article.

And not, it isn't an edit war. I won't bother reverting your undoing of the clean up until the other articles are deleted. Then, perhaps, you'll let the improved article stay. Collectonian (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who is making it an edit war by deleting content at the disagreement of *all* of the pages previous editors. I've been editting on wikipedia for two years and I'm pretty flexibly about the fluid state of the format of wikipedia's content. This is the most frustrated I've been on Wikipedia so far. You've got a lot to learn about wikipedia manners! I don't have time to keep up with the edit war that you've started here. Please, please put the per-volume articles back with the lists of shorts. DavidRF (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not a new editor, despite your unfounded (and unnecessary) snide remarks. If you really have been editing here for two years, I would think you'd know that you are not allowed to remove TfD tags (or AfD tags, in case you got that idea). You should also know what an edit war is and that this isn't one. Your reverts have been left alone and instead of a simple, quick merge, the instead I put the articles up for AfD, which was my first inclination before I tried to make the effort to merge. Collectonian (talk) 03:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Define "adequately covered"

One article for an ongoing annual series of box set collections is simply not enough. The articles for the individual volumes of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection must be kept intact. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Full lists of the contents of DVD sets are not necessary and not in keeping with the standard method of listing DVDs. The special nature of these releases is the only reason the full Looney Tunes Golden Collection article is needed at all, because it crosses many Looney Tunes properties. One could argue, though, that it could just as easily be reduced to a single paragraph or two within the main Looney Tunes article, which is how most DVD releases are handled.

This is an on-going release, for now, but there is no guarantee that the collections will continue. The version of the main article that I did, which was reverted, covered all the pertinent and encyclopedic details of each released parsed from the individual articles quite well. Collectonian (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

All the single article does is cover highlights and NOT the complete listings on each disc. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The length of the lists gives the appearance that they are complete and total lists. A highlight that covers 1/3-1/2 of the set isn't really a highlight anymore. My attempt to merge all of the sets into the single article can be seen at [2]. Collectonian (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw your attempt at a combined article and I have to say that it is woefully inadequate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems both you and DavidRF primarily work in music articles, where track lists are common, so I guess I can see why you both think these DVDs seem to need a huge list of "highlights." Anyway, I'm not going to worry about it a ton. The AfD nominations are done, now, so out of all of our hands. Collectonian (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Stco23

Want you are doing is very uncivil and it is not nessary, You need to stop now. You risk be desyoped and blocked from wikipedia. You keep it up I will file a case against you. Bye.--Stco23 (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the one violating policy by removing CSDs, being uncivil with both me and with other editors, and now making threats (for which you have already been blocked from editing). Collectonian (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to tell you that I did non-free photos because I did not know about that rule at the time and all of my photos are non-free so please reconsider what you are doing because if you do this the only photo I will have left is it a photo of my arm and of myself. Thank you.--Stco23 (talk) 16:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the first editor to warn you about your images, and you have had over two months to fix the problems with the images you've uploaded, but you have not done so. I'm not "doing" anything except applying the appropriate rules and policies of Wikipedia and the need to ensure the images do not violate fair use and copyright policies. Collectonian (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way I started putting non-free photos back on April 2006.--Stco23 (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider what you are doing with other peoples photos. This is not an text only encyclopidia. Photos do have a right to appear on this web site. Thank You.--Stco23 (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

All photos do not have a right to appear on this web site. When you uploaded those images, it is presumed that you read the rules about fair use, but still you uploaded images that violated those rules. Wikipedia policy does not allow images that violate fair use, which is only fair and appropriate and in keeping with copyright laws. Appropriate images that add to the value of an article are welcome and a great addition. Copyright violations, fair use violations, and images that do not add to the encyclopedic value of an article are not. Collectonian (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What is a appropriate image, a Low res photo that looks like crap, or a image that it low res that looks good. Its your vote not mine. I hate wikipedia because people don't get to do things the way they want to because of unfair rules that the owners make. This site feels like a text site where you can change things around and you can't keep it the way it is. Do whatever you please, take away peoples photos, I hope this web site goes under because some rules on this site suck. Sorry I wasted your time, you can delete all of my pictures if you want to because this site is unfair and I might just quit being a member of this site which might just make you happy. bye for now.--Stco23 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree with the rules of Wikipedia, however the fair use policies are required by law. An appropriate image is one that follows those rules, which include having its shortest dimension at 300 pixels or less. The idea of Wikipedia is not that anyone can do anything they want, but to have a group of people contributing to an encyclopedic body of knowledge. If people were allowed to do anything they wanted, Wikipedia would have died long ago because it would have been shut down from people tired of it allowing libelous and slanderous additions and stolen intellectual properties. If you wish to have a website with no rules, you need to make your own, though if you upload images that violate copyrights to any US servers, an ISP would delete your entire site if the copyright holder complained (which Disney and other big companies are known for doing). Collectonian (talk) 17:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You could have resixed them for yourself and not take them off articles.--Stco23 (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As the uploader, it is your responsibility to follow fair use guidelines you agreed to when you uploaded them, otherwise they are subject to deletion. All of this is stated on the upload pages. Collectonian (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I am just asking you to resize the photos that you are putting up for deletion thats all. I will be back later so bye for now.--Stco23 (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're the new TTN

I see you're taking TTN's place now as an editor who delete episode articles without concensus. Looks like you're going to screw things up for us too. ----DanTD (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Image deletion

Hello. I see you're getting into revert wars about image tagging. Not much good will come out of that, so please stay cool about it. A few things though: for one thing, the db-badfairuse template that you're using is not appropriate since it requires the uploader to be given at least 48 hours notice. Please use one of the di-X family instead (and you can do this through Twinkle). Moreover, non-free images which are too high resolution should not be deleted but scaled down so please don't nominate files for deletion on that sole basis as it tends to confuse/anger uploaders (as well as a number of admins). Thanks, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I thought the db-badfairuse was valid as the user was given multiple warnings two months ago about his images, which I thought covered all of his images. He was even banned after making threats against another editor who informed of this (which he also did with me, but I declined to report). I didn't realize very specific notices were needed for each image first, or that non-free images that violate fair use guidelines shouldn't be CSDed. I have CSDed other images for the same reason and never been told that admins don't like it.Collectonian (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll grant you he might not be the easiest editor to work with. I'm sure that not all admins are that careful about following deletion guidelines for media but that is usually the cause for quite a bit of bickering from uploaders. That's why the di-templates make sure that images whose shortcomings can be fixed are given a period of grace. There's really no urgent need to delete these bad fair-use images and proper notice is usually an efficient way to keep everybody cool and calm. Of course, there's no harm done really in you tagging these images for speedy deletion: some admins will fix the tags, some will delete and take the ensuing complaints. But I believe it's just a better practice to go for the slower, uploader-friendlier version. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. After contemplating some more, I went ahead and resized one of the images for use in the article (and was very glad Wikipedia does a resized version for the image page since the original image was over 1 MB in size). Also gave it a proper fair use rationale more in line with those used for TV Show DVD sets (I think). Hopefully it is a good compromise. :) I will certainly keep what you said in mind, though, for future edits. Working with so many TV and film articles, I do tend to see many such images, and it would nice to save rather than lose all together. ;-) Collectonian (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Stco23

I think you should put back that other image that I uploaded for the Chip N Dale Rescue Rangers article. If you don't like the high-res image then resize it. I typed back because I see that you did one of my images and all I have to say is thanks. Bye for now.--Stco23 (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind about the request that I made unless you can put that image back on wikipedia. I still thank you for putting back one of my images and putting in back in that Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers article. Bye.--Stco23 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I resized the volume 1 image for you and went ahead and put it in the RR article now that its been significantly cleaned up and brought more in line with the TV MOS. Only one DVD is needed for the section, though, as per the image guidelines, so I haven't done the volume 2 image. I hope you will agree that it is a good compromise. Collectonian (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture Day

Uh,why did you delete all the work I did on the Lizzie McGuire episode mentioned in the subject line?

~~Silvershrek,November 22nd~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvershrek (talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Because he wants to replace TTN as a mass deletionist. What he fails to recignize, was that I created a few episode articles because of the long plot sumamries on the main lists. Now he's sending things back to the way they were screwed up before! ----DanTD (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Since I believe TTN is still working hard to clean up the glut of episode articles, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say that She, like TTN, is working on undoing the glut of bad article creations? (and for the record, I actually hadn't heard of TTN until a day or two ago when you mentioned him. Thanks! It's great knowing there are others working at this strenuous task!) Collectonian (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My mistake regarding your gender, but no I don't believe you or he are doing a good thing by deleting all these articles. In these cases, redirecting them is merely "soft-deletion" as I remember another user putting it, and it makes the main episode lists far too long, which was what I was trying to prevent. The bad articles should be improved, not deleted or redirected. TTN is currently facing the threat of arbitration due to his slaughter of articles connected to TV shows. ----DanTD (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I've seen your nomination and read through all of it. TTN seems to have more support than detractors. Wikipedia is not epguides or IMDB and individual episodes should not have articles. When they include the proper data, it does not make the episode lists too long, and with long running series, one can easily break the episode lists into season episode lists. While you may like having individual episode articles, it is not supported by Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Redirecting is the nicer way of dealing with the clean up, since the articles do stay and people can still access the info for merging into the main articles. If people want individual articles for every character and every episode, go wikia. That isn't the point or purpose of Wikipedia. Collectonian (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, when the lists have too much data it makes them too long. Having proper data is fine, but to people like you, TTN, Ned Scott and others, there never seems to be such a thing. Having individual episode articles isn't condemned by Wikipedia policy guidelines either. No, the articles don't stay with the clean up. I fully agree that "Picture Day" needed some major rewriting when it came to punctuation mistakes, but deleting it took the opportunity to fix them away. And furthermore, wikia doesn't work. ----DanTD (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:EPISODE and Wikipedia guidelines and policies, individual episode articles are not appropriate for the vast majority of television show articles. A list of episodes is all that is needed, and only when the list of episodes is too long to fit in the main article. I did not "delete" the work, it is all redirecting to the main article. This allows you the chance to go and merge in the plot summaries into the list of, which I did as an example with some season 2 episodes. Collectonian (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Your Show of Shows

Look here, bucko, the source I gave was nielsen ratings, and yes it is a reliable resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin j (talk • contribs) 17:26, 24 November 2007

The source was not the Nielsen ratings site, it is a personal site that does not provide adequate sourcing for where it gets its ratings, thus failing the WP:Reliable Source requirements. Collectonian (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That is absolute bullshit. Different sources can back this claim too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin j (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 November 2007

If there are actual reliable sources, use those. This site is not one, and their additions are being removed. Collectonian (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Those three sources I provided show to be some proof of claim. Quit being so Conservative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin j (talk • contribs) 00:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, those sites do NOT meet WP:Reliable Sources, which means the info does not meet WP:Verifability and is in violation of the core Wikipedia policies. Collectonian (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Trinity Blood Characters

Are you the person who continues to delete any new additions to the Trinity Blood Article. It is understandable, but there is a reason why this website is called the "FREE" Encylopedia. Sorry for any inconvenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewR5D4 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because you were adding back stuff that had been removed (the indented sections under each character and stuff). I do not delete every new additions, only excessive ones, uncited ones, or ones that do not belong in the article or appear to be reverting the article to its previous messy state. You made so many edits in such a short time, that a wholesale revert was the best solution. Several editors been working on removing the listy stuff and just having prose sections for each character. I have reviewed the edits you made earlier that I reverted and some of your suggested changes have been cleaned up and incorporated into the article.

Also, please note that "free" does not mean that you are free to do anything you want or add anything you want, only that there is no cost to use it. There are rules and guidelines that need to be followed. Some particular ones you may want to read over to help with editing are WP:Reliable Sources and WP:Fiction. In particular, since the article is already in need of more citations, new additions really need to be sourced (either from the novels, the manga, or an episode of the anime, using the appropriate citation template). Also, keep in mind, that when you make edits, they can be edited or removed by other editors, particularly if they are seen as not being an improvement or a good addition to the article. It isn't anything personal, just part of the quest to have great articles. :) Collectonian (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I know a lot about Trinity Blood having viewed the Anime multiple times along with reading both the Original Novels and the Manga, so everything that I added was fact from the series, despite its obvious lack of citation. I was actually annoyed, but you are absolutely correct about the rules of this website. It is clear from the edits you have done that you are a proper user who likes to use the correct procedures, which appears to be quite rare quality in many of Wikipedia's articles and users. As such you are correct to cite sources, but I guess I got used to so people not caring about the guidelines that I wasn't used to someone actually trying to enforce it, but to each yours own. I am not entirely certain how to do it correctly, but I wish I could, so that I could fairly contribute without the information getting deleted. I actually wrote the extra information that you deleted from the original version of the article. I'm not great at citing properly, but I request that you add some extra pictures to the Trinity Blood article. I see that someone did... was it you? Decent pictures of all characters that actually appear in the anime as well as a few from the manga would be a welcome addition, as well as individual screens of Dietrich, Isaak, Petro, and Paula. You don't have to do it, but you appear to be good at it. Thanks for the time and good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewR5D4 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Too too true on most people just ignoring citations. Unfortunately, that often leaves the articles having unreferenced tags for months and, sometimes, their deletion. I'd be happy to help you do the citations if you need help with the formatting. A lot of the episodes are already cited once with named references, making those a little easier. For the novel/manga, at the least a cite should have which novel/volume it came from, though page numbers would be great as well. If you aren't sure how to do it, feel free to post it to the article talk page with the novel/manga its from and I can add it in for you.

I need to get my hands on the manga and novels as well, both to read and so I can scan in the manga images to add those, since no one seems to be adding them. The new pictures were added by User:Fireymoonlight, a regular in the anime articles. I was glad to see them as well, and I made sure they are all properly marked with fair use rationales so they don't get deleted (which is what happened to the ones some had added before :( ).

For the extra info that was indented below, it wasn't completely deleted, I just merged it into the prose so it conforms better to the MOS and reduced the redundancy. I'm still working my way down through the characters, though, and adding anime citations as I can. :) Collectonian (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. Oh, and I'm glad that some parts of my earlier edits in the Trinity Blood Article remained after the editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewR5D4 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob :) Collectonian (talk) 04:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. By the way, a lot of things I put down in the Trinity Blood Article were true due to me having seen all forms of related media. At least you left some of my work from the previous version... its cool to see something you wrote in the public eye on such a popular site. By the way, if you help me cite, I think the idea of a minor characters page would be interesting. I'm not that experienced in the proper use of this website though. In addition to something you asked on this page, I wish I could provide pictures from my DVD's for the article. Oh, and if you want to get your hands on the original novels, or the manga, they have some out in english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewR5D4 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In general, minor characters aren't considered notable enough for mentioning, so a minor characters article would just get deleted quickly. I know the novels and manga are out in English now, but finances haven't let me pick them up yet :) Unfortunately, from the above discussion, we already have too many images in the article. I've reduced them considerably, but I really need the DVDs to get some other group shots to replace the individual onces. The few remaining ones I've found online that I know are either from the anime or promo materials are of such low quality that they are no good for use in the article. :( Collectonian (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If I couldn't effectively fix the article, I'm glad that someone did. Was it you who added decent pictures for the characters. Not bad. I do believe that Count Gyula Kadar played a deep enough role to be added to the other characters section at the very least. I believe that he was far more important to the story than the children from the Never Land Episode. He was a primary character for an entire story arc, and the major antagonist through the entire first R.O.M. Trinity Blood novel. Since you appear to be dedicated to rewriting, I guess I'll let the minor characters slide, but I hope that you take the idea into consideration at the very least. If not, wait until you are able to find information on the novels to see it for yourself. Oh, and I know it says that noe pictures fro mwebsites will be tolerated, but original artwork done by Thores Shibamoto can be found on a website called mintokyo.net. Some of the pictures are exactly what you seem to be searching for. One has all of the main Imperial Nobles (Seth, Asta, Augusta, Ion, Baibars, and Radu) and another image in the gallery has the original R.A.M. AX Members. (Caterina, Abel, Kaya, Leon, Noelle, Tres, Hugue, Monica, and Kate) --AndrewR5D4 (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)AndrewR5D4

Thanks :) I added the newest group images, so it can be more in compliance with policy. I don't think Count Gyula Kadar was on the list yet, was he? I don't see him in the old list at all? I agree if he was a major antagonist from the first ROM, he should be in the list, but need info on him first to add (is he from the Empire, the Orden, etc). I tried to go to that website, but the site didn't load. Is that the correct URL? If they are from the artist, I'd love to look at them and see if they can be used. Three group images would be great! Collectonian (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I added him along with some people you deemed inappropriate. However, he had a much more prominent role in the novels like I said earlier. In the original version, the Partisan vs. Gyula was the point of the entire first Reborn on Mars Novel. Gyula isn't from the Empire or the Order of Rosen Kreuz. He was the Marquis of Hungary, and ruled over Istavan with an iron fist. (For full details see the novels rather than the Anime of Manga) He did mention meeting with the Imperial Nobles, but he wasn't one of them. --AndrewR5D4 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I had to go back a few weeks, but found it :) Adding back now. He was minor the anime, but didn't know he was more important in the novels. Collectonian (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

All right. I'll explain because I feel a need to warrant what I said. Count Gyula's hold over Istavan and his enforcement of law through military police was basically the situation through how Abel and Esther met. He played the main antagonist for that novel, until Dietrich betrayed everyone as he did in the Anime version. The point I was trying to make is that fact that Gyula did play a larger role than Peter or Wendy, yet did not survive the cut. His actions were actually the driving force behind the full out rebellion that Esther lead in the original novels. The story was also much more detailed than in the Anime, giving an entire book rather than two episodes. Same story, but much more background information. It also discussed Bishop Laura more, but not much was seen of her so you were right to delete that much. Good job on restoring the article and improving it. Thanks. --AndrewR5D4 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you mean more in terms of he played a bigger role before the events in Istavan. The main reason Wendy and Peter have survived cutting so far is because they are noted to return later in the series. I haven't seen those episodes yet to see what role they will play, but if its just a quick appearance they will probably be cut too. Collectonian (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right, in fact all Wendy and Peter do in Albion is help Leon hide from the resistence in the Ghetto. They didn't do much else. As for my own point, I insisted that Gyula be given a spot on the page because he did play a role as the main villain for a while and there was a much more detailed portrayal of the story arc in the book. I suggested his profile be re-added, because he caused a major problem for the Vatican in Istavan, even openly challenging them with the Star of Sorrow. His iron-fisted dictatorship over the city also acted as the catalyst for Esther's involvement with the AX. If it were not for him, she would never have even met Abel. or fought against the Military Police as the leader of the Partisans who opposed Gyula. Sorry for being repetitive, I'm just supporting my side of the argument. --AndrewR5D4 (talk) 03:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No prob...though he's already been added back so no need to keep arguing ;-) One reason I agreed with adding him back, though, is because he is the catalyst for the (fateful?) meeting between Abel and Esther that would eventually lead Esther becoming a Queen :) Collectonian (talk) 03:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you really can limit the amount of pictures if you can find the ones I have in mind. I believe I told you that Thores Shibamoto created excellent group photos. On minitokyo.net there are a few. Here's a quick reference list for ones that would be good if they are possible to use.

AX Picture: (From left to right) Abel, Noelle, Hugue, Wordsworth, Kaya, Caterina, Tres, Havel, Leon, Monica, and Kate

Rosen Kreuz Picture: (From Left to right) ?, Susan, Gunderian, Isaak, Dietrich, Cain, Helga, Balthasar, Casperand, and Melchior

Inquisition: Entire department drawing. Their names were in the original version of the article.

Don't think you can use these pictures, but they would be a solution to the too many picture problem if you could. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewR5D4 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a look, but you are correct, we can't use images from that site. No copyright information available and most of the wallpapers are probably made by using copyright images, which wouldn't be allowed. If the original images could be found with the appropriate copyright info, then it may possible be usable, but alas, not right now. Collectonian (talk) 04:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the time, sorry if my constant stream of messages got annoying. Too bad you couldn't use the pictures. They fit your idea for minimal usage of pictures perfectly, and they were all drawn by the original character designer for the series. They're probably the best pictures that you can find online for this subject, but I'm glad that you at least took a look at my idea. I think that I'm done with suggestions for now, but it was nice talking to you. I just decided that it was a good idea to discuss my ideas in a civil manner, and use supporting evidence, rather than becoming angry at you for changing an article. If I have any other concerns or ideas concerning this article, maybe I'll access te talk page. Thanks again for the time, and good luck in your endeavours.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all :) I wish we could use those images. If you ever come across them (or similar ones) on an official site, let me know. That would fall under promotional images and could then be used :) Collectonian (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:NFCC

The policy requires that image use be as low as possible in all articles of this site. The single images being in compliance with it does not make the article exempt. With character lists, group images need to be used. While you probably won't be able to get the entire cast within group images, you can at least get some that encompass the main characters. There is the one image in the main article, and I saw a couple on Yahoo images within the first couple pages. TTN (talk) 23:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You may be right, however, in this case, a message on the talk page would have been preferred to just removing them all. I agree that image use should be as low as possible, however I do think character lists can have individual images while still being in compliance. There is no stated requirement that character lists can only use group images. Nor would fan created images that violate copyright be a better than fair use of screenshots from the show. In the case of this particular article, there may be group images of some of the Vatican folks, but usable group images of the rest are likely to be hard to find considering half of them hate each other. :P

Side note: I bet DanTD will find this quite amusing LOL Collectonian (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to use group images, but there should be no more than three images at most (though there are some people that limit it to one for some reason). That's why group images really are the only way to go, unless you just want to illustrate Cain and a couple of others. I imagine that unless you can find some good ones within the series, you'll be stuck with this (should be the sound track cover) or Image:Trinityblood_anime.JPG. Whatever the case, they need to be cut way down. TTN (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...you should hit some of the dog breed articles then. I tried cutting out images there and got slap around (and the slap around was agreed to in a RfC). I've looked though multiple image guideline and policy pages, and did not find any sort of three image limit anywhere. Can you point to this guideline or policy? Everything I read indicates that one image per section is acceptable where it illustrates that section and there is no more than one per section except for extrodinary circumstances. That is being complied with in this article. The place images are probably unnecessary, and may images for some minor characters, but those are still being determined. Illustrations of the main characters, however, are good and notable.

I also just saw that image, but the problem is that there is no information on the copyright, so a fair use claim can't be made. If it is the CD cover, it would still have to be reduced so small that no one in it would be identifiable, which would seem to defeat the purpose of having images and violate WP:Image. This phttp://www.storytellersbookclub.com/chimage.php?image=tb8.jpg] might not be a bad group image, but again, no source or copyright info is available so no fair use can be claimed. Collectonian (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, most animals should be using free images anyways, so unless it's just cluttering things, it shouldn't really matter. There is no actual limit imposed (minimal use is supposed to be fairly subjective), but the general standard is one to three for list articles. If you look around, you'll see there is quite the campaign going on to cut them from lists (and it is backed by most people). It'll hit that one eventually, so you may as well cut them down now. I can't really help you on your search; I was just giving a couple examples. TTN (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep it in mind and see what I can do. I'm currently working on cleaning up that article as a whole, so will give it a try. I suspect other editors will complain, though, since most of those images were just added recently. :) Collectonian (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In the very least, could you cut it down to ten images for now? It's still too many, but I'll be fine leaving it that way for now. TTN (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed all of the place images, and those of fairly minor or 1-2 episode characters. That took out quite a few, but there are still a lot (I hadn't actually counted till now...wow). I'm going to spend some time working on the article now and will try to replace some more with some group/pair images over the next hour or so. Collectonian (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Down to nine. Would be easier if the I had the DVDs to get new screen shots from, though, as I'm sure there are scenes with both Cardinals and the Pope together, and probably some combos for the Empire section. Hopefully a good start, at least :) Collectonian (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (Yvon of the Yukon)

Umm thanks for helping me out with the Yvon of the Yukon article im kinda new at this and i didn't know where to put the copyright information.Also can you explain how to cite sources and all that because I don't quite understand how to do itNeoSkyte (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. :) For citing sources, there are several ways to do it. Personally, I strongly prefer the footnote method with in-line citations. The most basic way to do that (for an online source) is to put something like this: <ref>[http://theurl.com/that/Im/citing Page Name]</ref> at the end of the sentence(s) that rely on that source. A more accurate way, particularly for quoting on-line newspapers and journals, and citing off-line sources, would be to use a citation template instead (again surrounded by the <ref></ref> tags. Once you have some references in the article, you'll want to add a header that says "Reference" or "Footnotes" with {{Reflist}} as its content. Collectonian (talk) 04:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Trinity Blood

Yes, Maria's race was never mentioned in the Anime. But in the novel Gyula mentions that she was killed for marrying a Methuselah, and she was a member of the Church. Bascially, the proof lies there. I believe that another reason why Gyula was also angry was that she was killed by humans like herself.

Ahh. That actually makes more sense about his hatred for the church than the anime's semi-explanation :) Collectonian (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, the Anime only tells half the story most of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewR5D4 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

LOL, so true with many manga to anime series :) Collectonian (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Anime is more accurate than the Manga in some areas, considering that the Manga was based entirely on the Reborn on Mars Novels. If you want to see the real story, one should read the original works. --AndrewR5D4 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. Have you gotten a chance to see the English translation of the novels yet? The English versions of Japanese Light novels seem hit and miss. DMP's attempts have just been so hideous it almost made me cry. I think TokyoPOP is doing the Trinity Blood novels, right? They did fairly good with Kino no Tabi, so far, but wondering how the Trinity Blood ones are coming out. Come to think of it, I wonder if AoD has done a review yet... ~wanders off to see~ :) Collectonian (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't know what other role Susan von Scorzeny plays, but she is in that picture of the Rosen Kreuz Orden on the minitokyo gallery for Trinity Blood in one of Thores Shibamoto's original drawings. She's the second from the left if you want to know.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding Brother Petro's last name! I thought it odd that he didn't have one but Sister Paula did (and thanks for fixing her last name). That data book wouldn't happen to have an official spelling for Tovalish, would it? :P

For Susan, if her only roll is to be hinted at as having put Sister Kate in her position, then she doesn't really meet the notability requirements, even if interesting. Collectonian (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that it has the official spelling for Tovalish. But the novel spells it like this: Tovarich. So I will add it to the article. It's been a pleasure working with you to improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewR5D4 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks and agreed :) Collectonian (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad you jeep answering, I don't mean to be a bother. I see that the information I provided about Father Havel that you deleted earlier has been added by someone else. I actually found it out at the funimation website, so I wasn't sure why you deleted it to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewR5D4 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a bother at all. :) When you use the Data book info, can you add a citation (or put the page number in your summary, if you want, and I'll add a citation for it if you can give me the basic book info). Collectonian (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you listen to what he said to Isaak, Cain was planning on taking Abel's body to gain access to the rocket's access codes, as well as gain a complete body. Cain's body required periodic maintenance, so he desired to be whole again, and Abel's body is genetically identical to his. The data books also state this specifically in Cain's profile. If you need confirmation of this, listen to his brief conversation with Isaak during esisode 23. Yes... Gunderian is a minor character, so its fine that he was deleted, but consider fixing Cain's profile, or allowing someone else to.

--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh...I'll see episode 23 tonight. :) In episode 22, he just appeared to kill him because Abel attacked him. I'll give it an update tonight while I watch the episode :) Collectonian (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're not as big a fan as I am, but Enderle's plan was a single episode, although it did last multiple chapters in the novel. --AndrewR5D4 (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that's what I was thinking, but kinda tired right now and was having trouble remembering (and I've only seen most of the show once so far, still on my first viewing). Should be fixed now. Collectonian (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Good Suggestions

If you want to improve the Trinity Blood Characters Article without adding too many pictures, you can use the one of Leon standing in the Ghetto with Peter and Wendy for the last section, and you midht consider using a shot from the last episode for the Albion section. You can probably find one of Mary Spencer and Vanessa Walsh in a control room advising the Vatican operatives on how to destroy Isaak's ships. If you deem it unecessary, that's fine, but if you think it's a good idea, give it a try.

--AndrewR5D4 19:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've been thinking of replacing several of those with groups, as Peter and Wendy are often together on screen, as are Virgil and Vanessa (or Mary and Vanessa). Unfortunately, I don't have the DVDs (watching on CN), and I haven't found good screenshots online yet. I'll probably pick up the DVD set soon, though, now that I've seen (almost) all of the series (can't wait for tonight's conclusion!). So if no good ones can be found before then I'll make some from the DVDs. :) Collectonian 19:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so this is your first time seeing the entire series. It debuted on Adult Swim over a year ago, and I saw the second half, and purchased the set of DVD's to see the first half. Having read and viewed nearly all forms of Trinity Blood Media, I know quite a lot about the series. Feel free to aske me questions. Once again, it had been a pleasure working with you on making this article the best ot can be.

Yep :) I had seen the first few episodes on fansub back when it was first aired, but I knew it would get licensed pretty quick so I stopped watching it. I haven't had a lot of anime time of late, though, so I hadn't gotten a chance to see it until finally giving in and watching the dubbed version on Adult Swim. I'm looking forward to trying the manga and the novels :D Meanwhile, with the help of some web searching, I've made an attempt at filling in the differences section. Since you've had more exposure to the manga and novels, feel free to correct any mistakes I've made. Collectonian 00:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)